F 3 
.D14 
Copy 1 




--Kfti 





{3u ]4^!ji^ ^ CcLurL^Ju n.^cdi/. 




Glass _ ' 
Book. -^ 



S 



^ IL^ 



GENEALOGICAL NOTES AND ERRATA. 

P. ^ 






•1 



GENEALOGICAL NOTES AND ERRATA. 



Communicated by Mrs. Caroline H. Dall, for the N. E. H. & G. Reg. for April, 1873. 



Genealogical science stands at this disadvantage. When an error has 
been discovered, there seems no way of recording it, for the benefit of 
others, so that there shall be no possibility that any future student may be 
misled, by a wrong base, a wrong figure, or a worn-out tradition. 
Genealogical registers themselves, teem with long refuted assertions, and 
every inquirer has to begin at the beginning and work his way through the 
confusion. 

I have for a long time thought of suggesting to this journal the propriety 
of publishing a couple of loose pages or more, quarterly, upon which, under 
the head of errata, old mistakes miiiht be corrected and references mi^ht be 
given, and these pages, easily detached, might in time constitute an in- 
valuable volume. 

A great deal of matter would accumulate if those who are in the habit 
of using Savage's Dictionary, would check the errors they detect, and 
forward them to the editor to be ranged under such a head. 

No genealogist should be over-sensitive in such ar matter. His work is 
of a kind that requires many auditors. Let him be never so careful, yet if 
he is human, he must now and then lose the thread of the old story, or may 
at any absorbed moment permit the misprint of a numeral, — which he 
knows so well, that he will instinctively read it right, however it is printed. 

I wish now to draw attention to a few items, some of them errors, some 
of them discoveries, which may be of value to other students, and which I 
have encountered at different times during the last few years. 

Francis, Richard. Mr. Savage speaks of Richard Francis as once of 
Dorchester. The records of that town contain no allusion to any Francis 
who was a married man. At the age of 39, Richard is found in Cambridge, 
married to Alice (probably Wilcockes), in the year 1G44. He had no son 
Richard in Cambridge. If he had a son by an early marriage in England, 
it might have been such a son Richard, who, living in Dorchester in 16G1, 
signed a petition for the continuance of religious liberties after the 
restoration of the Stuarts. In 1GG9 the constables were ordered to look 
after sixteen young men, who could not prove an "orderly living." First 
on the list was Richard Francis, of Dorchester. This orderly living might 



be translated "constant employment." If a man remained unmarried he 
was a legitimate object of public concern. Savage gives an unmarried 
Richard Francis in Northampton in 1G75. He " came from the East," and 
was clerk of Turner's company in King Philip's war. He wrote a very 
good hand, and if he was Richard, of Dorchester, would have been then 38 
yearg old. 

Richard Francis, of. Cambridge, is afterward registered in Medford, and 
his will is proved in Boston. This does not prove that he changed his 
residence. William Heley, recorded first in Roxbury and then in Cambridge,, 
seems to have lived, from the first, in Newton, near to what we now call 
Brook Farm. I have instances of families registered in Ipswich in 1G38 ; 
in Rowley, 1660 ; Boxford, 1680, and Andover, 1700, who do not seem to 
have left the land they first settled on, in all that time. 

Whittingham, John. This person, who married the sister of Hubbard, 
the historian, was in Ipswich at a very early date. Even Savage is found 
asserting that he was the son of Baruch, a posthumous child of the 
translator of the Geneva bible, and his wife Katharine, sister of John Calvin. 

Surtees gives a careful pedigree of the Whittinghams, and another may 
be found in the publications of the Camden society. 

No such person as Baruch is known, nor did John Calvin ever have a 
sister Katharine. John Calvin married a widow, Idolette Storder nee 
DeBures. Idolette had a sister Katharine, daughter of Louis Jacqueman, 
of Oi-leans, heiress, in her mother's right,- to the Lords of Turvyle and 
Gouteron. It- was she who became the wife of William Whittingham, 
dean of Durham. The dean left two sons. Sir Timothy and Daniel, — the 
first the oldest, the other probably the youngest of a family of six children. 
Daniel, born Nov. 12, 1571, was living in 1590, and received estates under 
his mother's will in Kingsgate, Durham, which were probably those which 
the American family inherited. He was not married at that time, and is 
lost sight of in Durham. It must have been his son John who came with 
his mother to Ipswich, and did a man's duty there in 1640. 

In the Rogers memoranda, in the fifth volume of the Register, there 
is a confusion, easily cleared up, concerning the wife of the Rev. John 
Rogers. In January, 1687, John Rogers, farmer, was married in Ipswich 
to a Mrs. Martha Smith. Children were born to this pair many years 
after the Rev. John Rogers married Martha Whittingham ; and his name is 
always entered Mr. John Rogers, farmer. 

The names of AVhittin^ham and Hubbard have been left in inextricable 
confusion by all the early chroniclers. It was so common for two or more 
children of one family to receive the same name in baptism, that only a full 
record will dissipate the obscurity. This has been gleaned chiefly from the 
probate court. William Hubbard, flither of the historian, came to Massa- 
chusetts in the Defence in 1635, with his wife Judith, and two daughters, 
Martha and Margaret. His other children were: John, aged 15 ; William, 
aged 13 ; Nathaniel, aged 6 ; Richard, aged 4. Hl^bbard removed from 
Ipswich to Boston in 1662, and died in 1670. He is said to have sold his 
property in England for the advantage of the infant state, reserving only 
an income of £100 for himself and family. 

About the same time, from Southerton, now Sutterton, in Lincolnshire, 
came John Whittingham, who married Martha Hubbard ; and possibly a 
brother Thomas, who was lieutenant of the Ipswich company in 1645. 

Their mother was the widow of Daniel Whittingham, the youngest of 
the six children left by William Whittingham, dean of Durham. 



Daniel was born Nov. 12, 1571 ; lie was living in 1590 and unmarried, 
inheriting property under his motlier's will. There is no record of his 
marriage or death in Durham, but it is possible both might be found in 
Southerton. It is he whom JMrs. Partington has chosen to record as 
Baruch, but why she should describe him as a posthumous child is best 
known to herself. 

John Whittingham married Martha, daughter of the first William 
Hubbard. Her sister Margaret was already married to Ezekiel Rogers, 
and Ezekiel's sister Margaret, the beloved daughter of the Rev. Nathaniel 
Rogers, subsequently married his brother by that marriage, the Rev. Wm. 
Hubbard, the historian. 

John and Richard died unmarried in England, where they went to look 
after property, perhaps at Tendring Hundred in Essex. 

As Nathaniel is never mentioned after his arrival, he probably died 
early. 

William Hubbard, the historian, born in England in 1622, graduated in 
the first class at Harvard in 1642. He was invited to the Ipswich pulpit 
in 1656, and soon after married. He died Sept. 25, 1704, at the age of 
83 ; having written more than any man in behalf of the colony, if we except 
Governor Winthrop, whose material he doubtless had leave to use as if it 
were his own. 

Of Marijaret Rosrers Hubbard we hear little. She devoted herself to 
her fother in his last illness, and with his dying breath, the Rev. Nathaniel 
Rogers blessed the three children of his only daughter. She had no 
children after 1655. 

John Whittingham, the sole survivor of his family, married Martha 
Hubbard, and they had: John, dead before 1653; Martha, Richard, William, 
Elizabeth and Judith. 

According to the testimony of their nephew Samuel Clarke, John, 
Richard, Elizabeth and Judith died without issue, and as John Whittingham . 
himself died in 1649, his grandchildren seem never to have known his 
name, but to have taken it for granted that it was William. 

The sole surviving daughter, Martha, married the Hon. John Clarke, 
about 1667. This Clarke was the oldest son of the famous old surgeon, 
lumber merchant and cattle dealer, who had married Martha Saltonstall, 
and came from Newbury to Boston in 1651, a man who excelled in 
everything, from trepanning a skull and cutting for the stone, to inventing 
economical wood stoves. As this second John Clarke was not made a 
freeman of Boston till 1673, he may have been educated abroad, and 
probably came from Newbury to Boston. 

The Hon. John Clarke married Martha, daughter of John Whittingham 
and Martha Hubbard, about 1667. They had: 

John, born 1668 ; 

William, born 1670; married to Mary, dau. of Wm. Whittingham; 

Samuel, born 1677, who wrote the Gordon and Hubbard legend, and 
inherited the Gordon tankard ; and 

Elizabeth, born 1 680 ; married first to a cousin " Hubbard " who was a 
mariner, and afterward the third wife of the Rev. Cotton Mather, who 
considered her "a great spoil!" In 1818 one of her descendants, Hannah 
Matber Crocker, dedicated to Hannah More some " Observations on the 
Rights of Women," probably the first book on that much vexed topic ever 
printed in America. 

William Whittingham, brother of Martha Whittingham Clarke, married 



Mary, daughter of John Lawrence, who went from Ipswich to New-York 
in 1662. By her he had at Rowley, near Ipswich : 

Martha, married March 4, 1091, to the Eev. John Rogers, of Ipswich; 

Mary, married first, to the Hon, Wm. Clark, of Boston, a cousin on the 
Whittingham side ; second, to the Hon. Gurdon Saltonstall, governor of 
Connecticut, a distant cousin of her first husband ; 

Elizabeth, married first, to the Hon. Samuel Appleton, of Ipswich ; second, 
to the Eev. Edward Payson, of Rowley ; 

Richard, graduated at Harvai'd in 1689 ; 

William, who died early in the "West Indies. 

It ought to be said here, that few of the families coming to Massachusetts 
Bay could properly be called puritans. 

The Rogerses, Hubbards and Whittinghams were all what is called 
conformists, though some of them lived to repent of their conformity. 

Further corrections in reference to the families of Rogers and Wise, I 
defer to a future article, but wish to record an interesting discovery made 
by myself recently in Ipswich, which affords a confirmation of the entry 
found by Col. Chester on the Candler MS. (Register, xxii. 47). Among the 
children of Nathaniel Rogers in this MS., Col. Chester finds this item: 

" Mary married to Wm. Heley." 

When this item was published, hardly a descendant of William Heley 
credited it. Nathaniel Rogers made no will proper, and no one knew that 
he ever had a daughter Mary. The Heley family had no associations with 
Ipswich. The item was doubted altogether. 

Recently, in making some family investigations in Ipswich, connected 
with the name of Symonds, I determined to read every line of the records 
till I exhausted them, and I came unexpectedly upon the following entries. 

Elizabeth Heley married Jonas Gregory, May 10, 1672. 

Mary Heley married John Wood, May 1, 1676. 

It will be observed that the spelling of this name is the same as in the 
Candler MS. The family have not preserved it, either in this country or 
in England. 

These girls may have been brought up by their grandfixther. At all 
events they appear to have been married from their uncle's house, that of 
the Rev. John Rogers, afterward president of Harvard College. 

Although the descendants of William Heley, who bear his name, are 
now very few, there must be many persons interested in it, and as his 
various marriages have confused many investigators, I should like to 
conclude this article with an exhibit of recorded facts. 

At some future time I wish to speak of the family registers ordered to 
be kept by the Massachusetts Company, and of some interesting matters 
relating to the posterity of Reginald Foster. 

William Heley, b. 1613, probably in Devonshire; m. first, Grace, dau. 
of Miles Ives, of Watertown, 1643, and had: — 

i. Hannah, bap. July 7, 1644. 

ii. Samuel, bap. Feb. 14, 1646; d. early. 

iii. Elizabeth, bap. Nov. 14, 1647. 

Grace (Ives) Heley died in childbed, Nov. 8, 1649, and William Heley 
m. second, Mary, dau. of the Rev. Nathaniel Rogers, in 1650, and had : 



iv. Sarah, bap. Feb. 2, 1G51 ; d. Oct. 10, 1653. 
V. William, bap. July 11, 1G52. 

He m. third, Grace, dau. of Nicholas Buttrice, 14. 8. 1653, and had: 

vi. Grace, b. 1654. 

vii. Mary, b. Nov. 4, 1657. 

viii. Nathaniel, bap. Feb. 5, 1659. 

ix. Martha, bap. Sept. 9, 1660. 

He m. fourth, Phoebe, dau. of Bartholomew Greene, 15. 6. 1661, and had : 

X. Samuel, b. 16. 9. 1662. 
xi. Paul, b. April 3, 1664. 
xii. Mart, b. Oct. 29, 1665. 

He m. fifth, Nov. 29, 1677, widow Sarah Brown, of Hampton, the mother 
of the 3Iiss Sarah Brown, married by his son William in 1682. 

It will be seen that neither of the daughters married in Ipswich were 
the childi'en of Mary Rogers. Nor does the circumstance that two Maries 
were born and named in 1657 and 1665, prove that either died. I shall 
at some time give some curious facts to show this. 

The date of Mary Rogers's death is not known. She appears on the 
records simply as " wife Mary." 

The elements of confusion in the above record are many ; but a copy of 
it may have this use — it may preach patience. 

Students who found children born to William and Grace in 1647, to 
William and Mary tn 1651, and to William and Grace again in 1654, 
naturally enough thought that there were two William Heleys, a delusion 
which only the probate record has disjielled. 

Again, William Heley, 2d, who married Sarah Brown in Hampton in 
1682, returned to Cambridge, where he died in 1689, and his children by 
" wife Sarah " have been imputed to William Heley, 1st, who died at the 
age of 70, in less than a year after his son's marriage. 

I expect to find the pedigree of Wilham Hele among the descendants of 
William de la Hele of South Hele in Devonshire. 

He seems to have been an unfortunate man, perhaps an oldest son who 
had lost his inheritance in the civil wars. 

He was evidently admitted to the best families, yet it is not uncommon to 
find his name recorded in the wills of the period, as one to whom "that 
deat that is in his hand " is remitted. 

He was never very fortunate, but all his sons did well. 

In 1679, the county court of Middlesex, Mass., issued an order requiring 
certain statistical returns from the several towns. In the Cambridge return 
we find: — "30. 1. 1680. For English, our school dame is Good- Wife 
Heley at present but nine scholars." 



ll 



I 



i* 



